Talk:Xbox One/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Needs better picture

The current photo of the Xbox One is a photo taken of it in a glass case. Compare that to the photo of the PS4 or Wii U. --Revolución talk 17:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It displays the unit just fine, and meets our free image requirements. (As to note, the PS4 one is also from a glass case picture, the case though had a good whitelit backdrop to make the image easier to extract). When the unit is more widely available we can get a better picture, but this one does a fine job as a free image right now. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

See the Image representation section above for a recent discussion on this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

GB reporting on imminent change in DRM policies

[1]

No, do not include this yet, but I would not be editing anything related to the DRM or the reaction to it for the moment if this hold true since we'll need to change to reflect it. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

MS has now indicated changes have happend, but no documentation yet. [2]. Please don't add until we have a full picture of what's changed. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Update. The1337gamer (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Or here in case xbox.com isn't up. NOW we can update this. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Those updating the article (I'll keep out of the way for this), please remember that MS's old policies (pre-today) still need to be discussed, so wholesale removal of their original approach should not be done. I would think a section on "DRM policies" to outline the original and reactions leading to these changes, is the right way to include it. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, was about to put those policies in historical context. SynergyBlades (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy

The article is quite redundant to say thay announced DRM and reversed. This is on lead, history and every sub-section of Reception. --Ragnarok Addict (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is a major part of the product so far. Its a major part of its history and reception, and major aspects of the article should be mentioned in the lead, so I don't know where it should be trimmed, unless you want to cover it less in those respective areas. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It would help if we can find and add sources that explains MS' reversal decision. Not so much the details of what's changed, but why they changed it (I've not seen anything concrete, so the rumor mill includes both responding to user complaints and to being completely dethroned by Sony at E3). There's also been some criticism of MS's reversal (those that saw the original digital idea as a benefit now stating MS got rid of the car for giving customers a faster horse), which should also be included. But otherwise, this 180 is very very important here, and thus needs mention both in the lead and here. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment above. An objective look at DRM should obviously exist in the History section, but it should also be discussed in Reception having been a major part of the console's reception so far. As for the lead, well its purpose is to introduce and summarize the main aspects of an article, so it is redundant by nature (see MOS:LEAD). --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree in theory, Masem, but I personally haven't seen anything beyond hollow corporate jargon in regards to "Why". ("Microsoft heard your voice". "Microsoft cares about video games". Etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If MS doesn't give reasons, then we can at least add in what highly reliable journalists believe was the reason, though without giving any of them authority on the right answer (eg. "Microsoft did not cite a reason for the reversal, but GameSite1 and GameSite2 suggested that MS was influenced by the negative response from the May event and aligning with Sony's policy after the E3 conferences" - note I've no idea how true those are, just an example of how to write it). That's not adding OR and helps to balance the article which is already sorta on the negative side against the Xbox One. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please check: I've added a few things to the USed game section, as we have both a statement from MAttick who thanks users for feedback to adjust the X1 policy, and other analysts that pin this on Sony's E3 push. As to support the latter point, I have had to add a brief and hopefully neutral paragraph on what Sony did at E3 (and with clarification today that Sony used the negative reaction of the Xbox One to prime their E3 presentation). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Mixed vs. mostly negative

Several editors are bouncing the lead back and forth between the two phrases when describing the "initial reaction" to the Xbox One. "Mixed" was in place longer than "mostly negative", so I have reverted it back to that for now. I haven't seen an aggregate review site that supports it either way. I do like some of the proposed changes by ViperSnake151. Perhaps there is a better way to rephrase the first line so that such phrases aren't needed to begin with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree right now the best description of the praise is "mixed". There area lot of complaints, but there are roughly similar praises for the system, so it's reasonably balanced. As "mostly negative" is a harsher turn of phrase, I would go with the safer "mixed" for now. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I basically said "positive reaction was overshadowed", which is a more specific version of mixed. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that isn't necessary accurate, but it is edging on original research (clearly spinning the reception towards the negative), but if you can source that impression, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The INITIAL reaction was mostly negative! While it may be mixed now that is only due to the change of policy which earned it another nickname 'Xbox One-Eighty'. I think we still need to document that the INITIAL reaction BEFORE this change of policy was mostly negative. PantherLeapord (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The initial reaction was mixed. In among the hate for the DRM parts, there was people praising the television innovation aspects. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, most reviews were pretty neutral. While most pointed out the negatives, they also pointed out the positives. It would be original research for us to say that these reviews were mostly negative. That's why we cite aggregate review services, such as Metacritic, in the reception sections of game articles as a source. Unfortunately in this case, none exist for a product that has yet to be released. Unless you can find a reliable source that shows otherwise, we should stick with "mixed", or better yet, reword it in such a way that we aren't weighing negative vs. positive. I think VP151 was on the right track but not quite there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you call this pretty neutral? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you, like many video game related editors out there, can't seem to see outside of the core video game fanbase. Yes, sure, Neogaf or Gamefaqs members were raging, sure, but on the other side of things, many more mainstream outlets praised it for its technology. The average gamer cares a ton about things like DRM. The average random person just thinks "Oh! Shiny new technology". This isn't "Gamerpedia", it's Wikipedia. Its supposed to be written for general audiences. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't call that one very neutral. Negative reviews do exist. I don't believe anyone is denying that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Massive removal of DRM info

There has been some massive removals of info regarding DRM. I think there should be consensus on this before removing such a massive amount of information, with such little discussion on it. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. DRM has been one of the biggest aspects of the console to date. Additionally, is there any rhyme or reason on what is being kept or deleted? Lar409 has a history of disruptive editing and section blanking without discussion in the past... Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I will argue that there is a structuring problem here that does make the stuff about DRM (before the change) appear to be in the article twice. Notably, I think the stuff on the old DRM needs to be be move to the Recepetion section (merging informtaion and sources, though, not outright deletion), and expanding the History to explain the past established industry rumors and timeline (eg, "Microsoft's last console, the XBox 360, was introduced in..."). The History section will need to mention the swap on June 19th, but that cn call out to the Reception to go over the details, and avoid filling them in there. If no one has a problem I can try to work that around. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have far more faith in your ability to do this, so I'd much prefer that... Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think once we add to the History section, as you suggest, the DRM section won't appear as dominating. I actually disagree, though, that most of the information on DRM should be moved to Reception. That section should be reserved for the "perception" of DRM and what led to the policy switch, while the History section should focus on the event itself (i.e. what Microsoft's DRM policy was and how it changed). Other editors are going to have to realize that a substantial amount of information in this article evolves around DRM, and therefore more than one section covers it (albeit, in different ways). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've made the switch around, so please check and review. On the History section, I would leave this focused on hardware, in other words, what I've added is about all the rumored Durango stuff, etc. (sourcable rumors, mind you). All this stuff about DRM and the like is rapid course correction and does muddle understanding the article - we want to get quick to what the console is and what is does. Then we can talk about the course correction and issues around it. (As a note, I'm a fan of very coarse history sections, broad changes rather than detailed timelines, and this whole DRM stuff falls under detailed timelines, which does have to be explained later, but not in the History section). --MASEM (t) 21:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Xbox One will have Unity 3D Support & DirectX 11.2

At Build 2013 Microsoft announced that the Xbox One and Windows 8.1 will support the latest version of DirectX 11.2 which adds a few new features. Also at the Build Press conference they announced a deal with Unity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Don Mattrick

Though still in rumor state, work is Mattrick's leaving MS to Zynga. It is being heavily speculated (read: do not add this now) that his departure is predicated on the poor Xbox One launch. If this is the case (eg with verification), this does need to be added as part of the reception, but again, we're only in rumor mode right now. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not official yet, but here's more info --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Zynga just confirmed him as new CEO. But we're still lacking details on this, though I'm seeing enough RS sites throw the speculation that the failed XBox One launch is the biggest factor here, given how tight Mattrick was on the 360. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I found a source that properly attributes suggestions that MAttrick left due to Xbox One to various journalists - eg no original research and otherwie a neutral article. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Memory bandwidth

Numerous reliable sources report memory bandwidth as 68.3 GB/s (DDR3) and 102 GB/s (eSRAM) respectively. A piece by Richard Leadbetter in Eurogamer confirms this, but points to unidentified sources asserting the hardware is capable of a greater theoretical rate of transfer than is generally accepted. [3] An editor sought to update this article with the higher figure reported by Leadbetter. (diff) I reverted to the previous version and provided a logical reason for doing so. (diff) Leadbetter's informers are nameless and his article is uncorroborated. It remains a single source. Allowing for the possibility of other game journalists confirming the story independently--as opposed to recycling from it--we can move forward and amend our article accordingly. Sure enough, my edit was reverted when a second source was forthcoming. (diff) The new source, however, does not support Leadbetter's article; rather, it confirmed the original specification. [4] Consequently I re-edited the text to make this clear. (diff) Somewhat frustratingly, I was reverted once again and told to "calm down" (diff) with an edit summary that ignores my stated rationale (just like the scene from Anger Management haha). It is not wise to replace a figure accepted by countless reliable sources with a theoretical transfer rate that can only be exploited in limited circumstances. — TPX 21:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The article states that Microsoft passed the information to developers who appear to be the "well-placed development sources" mentioned in the opening line. Eurogamer is a trusted, reliable source, and therefore, the information should be considered verifiable and worthy of inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting because several days ago you made precisely the opposite point when discussing the amount of memory reserved for the operating system. In that earlier instance, you were not opposed to the information being included on condition editors could find additional sources that had reported the same information independently of each other, otherwise it should be omitted based on the scarcity of reliable references. You wrote:

• "Until another source independently confirms the 5GB partition for games, we should probably drop it from the article" (diff)
• "[T]he person being interviewed is a developer and not a direct representative of Microsoft" (diff)
• "My beef at this point is the number of sources which seems relatively low." (diff)
• "I would say we need at least one more reliable source before it meets concerns" (diff)
• "[I]f we had more sources that have independently verified this "fact", then I would be all for including it" (diff)

User Sergecross73 agreed with your reasoning and pressed for exclusion on the same ground. Finally, after 3 unique references were found, and following a vote, the information was added to the article. Now something has apparently lessened your concern because both of you are happy to discard a widely-circulated and accepted figure for a single source that references anonymous individuals who say bandwidth is higher under circumstances not fully understood even by Microsoft! Perhaps you can enlighten me. — TPX 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but there is more to the previous discussion regarding the 5-3 split. First of all, the two sources relied on a single primary source, both of which had issues (one was dated, and the other was a questionable interpretation of an interview). Neither was considered strong enough to stand on their own merits. Secondly, there were a ton of articles that came out after the sources in question comparing the PS4 to the Xbox One. None of them mentioned the 5-3 split – a significant piece of information when writing a comparison article. There were a lot of questions and very few answers. The Gizmodo reference ultimately sealed the deal, only because it didn't state that the information came from Kotaku or Game Informer making it a third independent source.

I definitely understand where you're coming from, but I do see some differences this time around. For starters, Eurogamer is extremely reliable in the gaming industry, and if I had to take an educated guess, I would postulate that there are more sources on Wikipedia referencing Eurogamer that Kotaku, Game Informer and Gizmodo combined. In addition, the article appears to be crediting multiple sources for the information. This is not the "single primary source" issue we had before. And finally, the argument that the "widely-circulated" number doesn't match up ignores chronological order. Eurogamer is clearly one of the most recent reports, if not the most recent report, regarding ESRAM in the Xbox One. I doubt that future articles about the console's ESRAM design are going to ignore this report from Eurogamer. They will either confirm or deny it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to reach a consensus on this, then the article should read that there is 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth between the CPU/GPU and RAM and an additional 102 GB/s bandwidth through embedded RAM. CR4ZE (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the information and reference you added to the article is good enough to stand on its own. However, I would be fine with reverting back to 102 GB/s for now until there are more sources, should that be the consensus. I don't feel too strongly either way at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Consider that as long as a reliable source is reporting this, the other option is to state whom is saying what (like with the 8/5 gb memory thing for games), since it doesn't appear to be yet affirmed by any official document from Microsoft. So if there are conflicting reports in two separate reliable sources, simply assert this with proper prose attributing to the right group. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a reasonable suggestion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I support keeping the 102 GB/s figure. For read and write operations, that is unchanged. The information from Digital Foundry basically says that for certain combinable read-write operations, under certain circumstances, there is a theoretical maximum that is higher. I would be okay with prose along the lines of "for combined read-write operations, performance could reach a theoretical maximum throughput of 192GB/s" as that is accurate. But simply stating that it's performance is 192GB/s is flat out wrong. -Kai445 (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The article points out that Microsoft techs have discovered that read and write operations can occur "simultaneously", which clearly is a change to the way read and write operations can be executed. Also, bandwidth is a measurement of "theoretical maximum throughput". Inserting the phrase is redundant and makes it sound overly technical. If it is decided to continue citing the source, then I don't see how 192 GB/s of bandwidth is inaccurate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right about that phrasing being redundant, so I've striked it. As for the simultaneous reads and writes, from the article: "...the original bandwidth claim derives from a pretty basic calculation - 128 bytes per block multiplied by the GPU speed of 800MHz offers up the previous max throughput of 102.4GB/s. It's believed that this calculation remains true for separate read/write operations from and to the ESRAM." That means that only a combined read-write operation could reach speeds above 102GB/s. That needs to be expressed as such in prose, if that source is to be used. TPX was spot on with his original conclusion that that scenario is only "exploited in limited circumstance". -Kai445 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement currently says that the ESRAM is capable of 192 GB/s of bandwidth, which is technically correct. How that number is determined isn't mentioned. If you feel that it needs to be broken down into separate and combined read/write operations, then I agree that the distinction would need to be pointed out in prose. Personally, I don't see a need to break it down that far, but I'm not opposed to doing so either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you added another line to your comment above as I was typing a response, so let me amend mine as well. We don't know how limited the circumstances are at this point. That part is speculative. The source cautions that development "tools and libraries" will need some time to mature, meaning that a year or two after launch may yield a very different performance assessment of the two consoles. I'm not sure it's all that helpful right now to buy into any analysis, at least before the consoles are released. Stating the capability is a lot different that stating what is believed to be "real-world" performance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add in this discussion that if a 1024-Bit(128bytes) bus can electrically be charged in some way to enable read/write parallelism as stated, the same happens with GDDR5 that is also read/write parallel. So this read/write parallelism is a highly complex issue that applies to both ESRAM and GDDR5, patience and detailed clock cycle, energy measurements are required. Buses are really long wires with enormous capacitance. The charge/discharge cycle consumes a huge amount of energy. Finally, DDR3 is capable of only one type of operation at the same time. 177.96.37.42 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hate to pop in in the middle, but you can, in theory, depending upon bus timing. If there is sufficient space in the off cycle (assuming synchronized bus), you could use it for return signaling. One could also multiplex the bus for other signalling, as frequently, one doesn't use every clock cycle for signaling. But, that is a significant circuitry change that would price any such unit well outside of a consumer market item. You're also wrong about the bus, they're not only enormous capacitance (that depends on how the bus is physically arranged), it's massively inductive when it turns especially so, which limits the frequency of the bus, in really simple terms. One has to consider each element of the bus' impedance, which involves both inductive reactance and capacitive reactance. AKA, the analog part of a digital circuit design, due to the physical part of the design.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have stated where the information came from and added some information from the Eurogamer article. I would oppose any attempt to remove the 102 GB/s figure since that information has been widely reported. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I second this. -Kai445 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Good compromise, nice work. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

On its face, does it not seem weird to you? I mean, MS gets criticized for game policies and they about face, fair enough. But when they are taking flak for their choice of memory implementation, they suddenly "find" 88% more bandwidth somewhere? It seems fishy. Plus they are like "Oh, we found some spare cycles" What does that mean, exactly? Peak throughput means that *all* theoretical cycles were already accounted for. Suddenly there's holes they got filled in

"Reads more like creative accounting to disguise a GPU downclock from 800MHz by 50MHz. 750 (freq) * 128 (bytes/clock) = 96 GB/s 96 GB/s * 2 (simultaneous read/write) = 192 GB/s" - Crunchers @ Eurogamer.net

^^ If anything, that guy might be onto something. I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt by saying maybe they were talking about some read-modify-write manipulation going on that was somehow allowing them to in essence do more work... but I think I was being optimistic. We need more details. -Kai445 (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Crunchers may have been on to something, you can see the same speculation here: http://www.gamechup.com/has-the-xbox-one-gpu-been-downclocked-by-50mhz-to-750mhz/ ... this may just be fancy double-counting going on. -Kai445 (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Xbox engineer Nick Baker was accused of "creative accounting" after the official architecture panel discussion, when he remarked: "Again on the RAM, we really wanted to get 8 GB and make that power friendly as well, which is a challenge to get both power friendly for acoustics and get high capacity and high bandwidth. So for our memory architecture we're actually achieving all of that and we're getting over 200 GB/s across the memory subsystem."^[5]

This drew a number of responses:

Similarly, the company claimed that there was more than 200GB of bandwidth within the system. Again, the number had no context or clarification and if rumors are to be believed, it suggests some rather creative accounting: 68 GB main memory bandwidth, 102GB bandwidth to an embedded SRAM buffer for the GPU, and 30GB bandwidth between the CPU and GPU. While that does add up to 200GB, there are no two parts of the SoC that can communicate with each other at 200 GB/s Ars Technica.

According to their data, there’s roughly 50GB/s of bandwidth in each direction to the SoC’s embedded SRAM (102GB/s total bandwidth). The combination of the two plus the CPU-GPU connection at 30GB/s is how Microsoft arrives at its 200GB/s bandwidth figure, although in reality that’s not how any of this works. AnandTech

Xbox One chip is a slightly different beast. It uses the same eight "Jaguar" 1.60 GHz cores, but a slightly smaller Radeon GPU that packs 768 stream processors, and a quad-channel DDR3-2133 MHz memory interface, which offers a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, and holding 8 GB of memory. Memory between the two subsystems are shared in a similar way to PlayStation 4, with one small difference. Xbox One chip uses a large 32 MB SRAM cache, which operates at 102 GB/s, but at infinitesimally lower latency than GDDR5. This cache cushions data-transfers for the GPU. Microsoft engineers are spinning this off as "200 GB/s of memory bandwidth," by somehow clubbing bandwidths of the various memory types in the system. TechPowerup

The bandwidth is adequate for the system they have created so it's unfortunate they feel the need to overstate matters in this way. — TPX 17:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is sad that Microsoft has been unable to communicate effectively and consistently since the first Xbox One announcement on May 21. They have been all over the place, making it hard to accept any of their claims at this point. With that said, I still believe the statements about ESRAM in the article are consistent with what we know. I think we all agree that the 192 GB/s claim is walking a fine line at the moment. Hopefully, more information will be released in the near future. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE LOCK THIS PAGE

please, please lock the article page it will end up being vandillised because of stupid fanboys. i also suggest if it is not done already, lock the ps4 page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.110 (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, pages are not locked on a pre-emptive basis. See WP:PROTECT for a full explanation. - X201 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, X201 (talk) a good point. In addition, this page has seen very, very little vandalism so far and is watched by many editors. Such is also true for PS4. If anything, the two pages seem to have a bit lower incidence of vandalism than other popular articles.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I keep an eye on both pages, and can protect them when necessary, but I agree that it's not at this point, and yeah, we're not supposed to pro-actively protect pages. I kinda doubt its going to be necessary until they launch at the end of the year. (The fanboys and haters will likely be out in full force then. But we'll deal with that when we get there.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Jaguar

Can someone please add "CPU is based on AMD´s Jaguar Architecture"? [6] --Belzebübchen (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added that information to the Hardware section of the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Reception" and "Initial used games and Internet verification policies"

Can we separate the "Initial used games and Internet verification policies" from the reception to said policies? Because the initial policies themselves are encyclopedic and of significant relevance to the article, they should exist separately from press commentary. For clarity, the policies section should also include subsequent policy reversals where relevant. 131.90.0.235 (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Because those are no longer the "working specs", the only way to present them is as a result of the response to the initial reveal to make sense chronologically. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though for clarity due to the length of the section, could we perhaps break it up into subsections? E.g. something like "Initial Policy" (paragraph 1), "Reception" (paragraphs 2-4), and "Policy Reversal" (paragraph 5). 131.90.0.235 (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up - possible delay

[7]

VG247 is calling this as a rumor and they're trying to get verification, but keep eyes open and do not add until we know exactly the situation. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't believe that, whatsoever. There's no way in hell M$ would allow the console to miss a Christmas launch. Besides, just today I've seen another source (i.e. a printed VG magazine) giving a November 1st launch date. That said, I suppose we should keep on eye on the article. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, it's more a caution that there will likely be IP edits trying to add this in before we have any confirmation. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[8] Still Nov for UK and US, but delayed in other EU markets. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Here's another source confirming the delay, which contains a few more details than the Polygon source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

CPU speed - accuracy disputed - a second reliable source requested

The new reported CPU speed of 1.75GHz is likely wrong - given a 853MHz GPU speed and shared synchronous DDR3 memory (which means that devices using the synchronous memory should operate at integral fractions of each other's clock speed) - then the 1750Mhz and 853Mhz clocks are contradictory.

I would note that if the CPU clock was 1705MHz (obvious typo) then a proper 2:1 clock ration is obtained.

It seems likely that the CPU figure has been misreported or that Yusef Mehdi had a typo in his notes. I can trace the 1.75 figure back to http://www.geekwire.com/2013/xbox-update-console-full-production-improved-cpu-performance/ - all other sources seem to be based on this. It seems likely that this report contains factual errors. Or that the previous GPU speed is out of date.

I would tend to regard the 1.75 figure as likely erroneous without a second independent reliable source.

Thank you.83.100.174.82 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

1.75 also tweeted by Xbox planning lead Albert Penello. Links to geekwire article, but due to Penello's position of leadership on the Xbox team, I would take his tweet as confirmation that the article is correct: https://twitter.com/albertpenello/status/375020375824150528 131.90.0.241 (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I saw that. There is still the issue that the current CPU and GPU speeds we have in the article are contradictory in terms of synchronous DDR memory - something is plainly wrong - the basic maths just does make sense. Hopefully this will be clarified at a later date. 83.100.174.82 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Smartglass

Can someone add Android and iOS devices to the smartglass section? The smrtglass app is available for both systems via their respective app stores.131.90.0.241 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

official confirmation: http://news.xbox.com/2013/09/ent-xbox-one-smartglass 24.218.19.56 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually Smartglass has been a thing for iOS and Android for a while now. Surprised it was missing. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

European Retail Editions

Could it please be added that European bundles of the Xbox One were to include either Call of Duty: Ghosts in the standard editions or Fifa 14 DLC in the Day One editions. However Microsoft later confirmed that due to unprecedented demand a number of UK Day One bundles would instead include a copy of Forza 5 and this could extend to other European countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven a68 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Should it count as a video game console in the introduction section?

Microsoft is generally using the XBOX ONE as an advanced smart-TV platform that also has the extra to power to run blockbuster games. With making the Kinect come included in every box, it is clear that they are trying to push this interactivity with the TV as a the main selling point (XBOX Fitness, NFL App on XBOX, XBOX Guide, etc.). When looking at the marketing, it appears as more of a multimedia device that has enough power to play Call of Duty and other AAA games, rather than a video game console with simple multimedia features.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.222.214 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 October 2013

That does not change the fact that it is, first and foremost, a video games console. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In what way is it first and foremost a video games console? It's more than that and it's repeatedly being marketed as more than that, as various outlets, including Microsoft are always calling it an All-in-one entertainment system. The only thing that makes it a video games console is that fact that it includes a controller. But again, it's main selling point is all around entertainment, not video games.

You got a better name for this then BoN? It isn't really a set top box since it plays video games. Zero Serenity (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not, its still a video game system, it just has even more extended functionality. There's no reason to arbitrarily draw the line now; I mean, we didn't label the 360 differently once its started doing streaming video with Netflix, right? The PS3's slogan is "it only does everything", but we still call it a video game console. No, sorry, but it's original research to say that it's more of an "entertainment system" now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Particularly that its hardware is presently all gears towards playing high-end video games, the TV/living room functions are its secondary market selling points (eg that reveal back in March,IIRC) but this is a video game console, first and foremost. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that it is "more than [a video games console]", but that doesn't negate the fact that video games are it's primary focus. A car is still a car, even when you give it wi-fi, or bluetooth, or GPS. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft are promoting the machine as an "all-in-one entertainment system" (see XBOX.COM/XBOX-ONE) and there are plenty of reliable sources that describe the system in exactly these terms, noting this is the term Microsoft has chosen to market the new gadget. — TPX 12:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To quote the very same source you just gave:

"Xbox One delivers an all-new gaming and entertainment experience that will transform how you play. Xbox One brings together the best games, the most reliable service and rich entertainment all-in-one system that is built for today and tomorrow."

Clearly, here, the focus of the text is that of games, followed by entertainment. (In fact, the precise quote is "games, plus entertainment".) --Jasca Ducato (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We can note that MS calls it that, but that doesn't mean that's what it is. We don't change a car from "car" to "super deluxe luxury sports vehicle" just because they spew that corporate marketing lingo in their commercials. Its far more frequently called a video game system by reliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would hope people are not confusing marketing jargon with what things are actually called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned by Jasca above, even in MS's description ("what its actually called") refers to "gaming" before anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reception ridiculously NegPOV

The entire section is written with a list of negPOV material. Then the items that are not-negPOV are written with a double-tone. For example, "to control the living room" ie: MSFT will _control_ -- insert it's will against you in your own living room, contributes to the negPOV tone of the section.

The Xbox One has a long list of games that received awards. But, the second paragraph leads with this hyperbole; "to be "uninspired", "lackluster" and plagued by "old men in suits, a stream of buzzwords, and superficial games that valued visuals over innovation". Yet Titanfall, an exclusive launch title has garnered more awards than any title for either PS4 or Xbox One (unreleased). How can this be?

The *entire* section is just over-the-top negPOV.

This needs to be corrected.

It's utterly ridiculous and in serious need of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.124.70 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that there was this negative press at that time. (Also remember, Titanfall, as of E3, was multiplatform, and only yesterday became exclusive to the One + PC). It was critically panned, and we can't change that perception *then* Now as we are approaching the release, and both PS4 and Xbox One final specs are emerging, there might be more to what journalists will say now, though I think they're all waiting until all launch day specs are known. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Initially there was a lot of negative press, especially following E3. There are some positive statements in the section but it's difficult to find them when they are overwhelmed by the negative ones. I have not seen the initial reactions changing that much (and I don't expect things to change until the console is released). If you find sourced positive reactions please feel free to add them. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Reception section should be an accurate reflection of what exists in reliable sources. There is an overwhelming consensus that Microsoft mismanaged the initial marketing of the Xbox One (e.g., ability to play used games, privacy concerns, etc.), along with the reveal which many considered to be mediocre at best in terms of showcasing advantages over the Xbox 360. There are some positive opinions, of course, and a few are noted. Your comment about the hyperbole in the second paragraph ignores the fact that it's in reference to Xbox One "launch" titles. Titanfall is not going to be available until March 2014. Also, it's not a good example, because it's being released on the Xbox 360 and Windows, so it's not even an Xbox One exclusive. The balance is likely to change after the console is released and there is more to write about, but for now, a majority of the reviews out there focus on the console's reveal and marketing issues. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I divided it into Pre-release reception just to ensure that this is going from that presentation alone. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Actual Call of Duty developers via a very solid source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=580197605&diff=prev

So that's not enough? Well, what level of sourcing is needed then? Hcobb (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As was said in the edit notes, it could have just been memory allocation problems which is a problem with the game, not the hardware. Zero Serenity (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this really need to be at this article though? Sounds more like something to be put at the CoD article. Sure, there's some gamers who like to discuss it on messageboards and whatnot...but do we know if its actually having an effect on the system and people perception of it? Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The statement in question is referring to the console's performance, which is irrelevant to the section "Games" it was included in; this should go under "Hardware". Either way though, I feel that the statement is non-neutral; it's basically saying "XBox One can't run Call of Duty as well as PS4", and that doesn't belong in Hardware either, because that section shouldn't be about comparing the console to PS4. Rewritten a little better, I would see this going under the Reception section, since this is the developer's opinion, but I would be against inclusion of the statement at all. It feels too random. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the main source that other articles are recycling: Xbox One Resolutiongate.

I do think this information will have an impact on the gaming community's perception of the Xbox One in terms of its performance capability, especially for those on the fence still deciding which console they're going to go buy. But as you can see in this article, the lower res may have more to do with the XB1's OS, and not necessarily it's hardware. Trying to figure out resource allocation in time for the game's release was like trying to hit a moving target during development (Microsoft was still finalizing the environment during this time). Add that to the fact that Infinity Ward was developing the game for 5 platforms simultaneously. I agree with Sergecross73 that a bulk of this may be more appropriate for the COD article, but a brief mention here might also be warranted. It just needs to be accurate as well. That's why I suggest we wait for the reviews and more articles to be written – "for the dust to settle". --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've read (but not kept good track of, and by no means consider this appropriate to add yet) the word is that there are lot of reports putting the One's performance under the PS4, visible through things like COD's difference in frame rate. If this is true (a lot of this I would consider as third- or four-party removed information), there will likely be critique of the One's performance at release, at which point this fact can be used to support that. But again, this is only from watching headlines pass by on Twitter and not paying attention to specific details. The fact is fine over at COD, as long as its not used to try to put the PS4 over the One - its just a technical fact at this point. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

list of apps

What about adding a section (or sub-section) about list of apps available on XBox One? ref -Abhishikt (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's notable enough for Wikipedia, but if you can find consensus to add the list, it probably belongs in its own article (e.g., List of Xbox One applications) and not in the main console article. Also keep in mind that we do not yet know for sure what applications will be available at launch. The ref even admits that, so it would be best to wait until after the console is released. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, itd probably be best to wait to see what is even confirmed, and it'd probably be best to have something to actually write about in paragraph form, rather than just a list of random apps... Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over lead section "50% as powerful".

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: removed any statement linked to the debate. —CKY2250 ^ταικ 14:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Here, and at the PlayStation 4 article, there has been edit warring over the commentary that its 50% as powerful as the PS4. No one's bothered to discuss it, so I figured I'd start it up:

On one hand, there's plenty of sources reporting on it, so while I don't know for sure that it's actually true, it is in fact true that "sources" are reporting it. But I also agree with the other side of thing; this shouldn't be mentioned in the lead though.

1. Per WP:LEAD - new ideas are not supposed to be introduced in the lead paragraphs. This is not discussed anywhere else in the article. (At least this particular factoid isn't.)

1. I think it brings up WP:UNDUE issues as well. It's too specific of a statistic to be mentioned in what is the broad overview of a product. It's not the place to compare/contrast against competitors.

So in general, while I don't oppose having it in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. Put it in hardware or something. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not edit warring when I try to stop users (Xbox fans?) who are trying to delete well-cited information many times without stating why (and then dismissed well-known gaming souces like IGN and Edge as irrelevent "arbitrary numbers, marketing ploy") Shrine Maiden 15:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It does feel arbitrary to compare a console's price or specs against another simply because it's a "competitor." It feels non-neutral in a way. Even though it is cited, it isn't relevant to the general reader and doesn't really belong in the article, let alone the lead. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Cky2250 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The person was wrong to revert your edits without edit summary, but the fact that you keep re-adding it without discussing, across 2 different articles no less, definitely constitutes as edit warring. Anyways, care to address any of my points. There's both issues due to WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Discussion at the PS4 Talk page is leaning towards removing it outright, because there's no context (How much is 50% actually?) and it all traces back to one "unnamed source", so the info itself really isn't that verifiable. Its verifiable that it's been said, but its not verifiable that its true. Major concerns here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion you are talking about (on PS4 talk page) is mainly posted by Cky2250, the user who deleted it many times without saying why. And now some Xbox fans (Cky2250, etc) are more of experts than editors on IGN, Edge, game developers? It's laughable. You just don't want that piece of information in this article, right? Shrine Maiden 15:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Masem and I are both against it as well, and we both are Admin who edit a large variety of video game articles, and have no histories of being "fanboys" or anything silly like that. We're not biased. Meanwhile, you still haven't made an actual argument for inclusion, you just keep on throwing out accusations. Please address the points at hand. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Assuming one is removing information because he might be "an Xbox fan" is not productive. Like I said, though it is cited, the information doesn't really benefit anybody except those who are considering purchasing one console or the other, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedic article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That is just an assumption I do not own an Xbox nor will, I was doing this under that fact that I thought it was not acceptable on the wiki. Side note, if he viewed my profile he would see that it only mentions that I am a PC gamer, and nothing about xbox at all.Cky2250 (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The other reason to keep it out is that there's no final hardware out there yet to test, which is the only place where these measurements can be made. If that's made and the Xbox found to be drastically underperforming, that might be something to add, but right now the numbers are speculative. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Give some respected sources that say that Edge (magazine) and ExtremeTech are making things up, or you guys - some random Wiki users - are more relevant than IGN and game developers. Shrine Maiden 15:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No one said the sources are making this up. Please state why the information is relevant to the general reader. You still haven't addressed that yet. --ThomasO1989 (talk)

We're not disrespecting those sources, its the "anonymous devs" behind them that are in question. (If Edge did that research and made the claim itself, that would be different). Further, the point is, 50% more powerful in what ? Speed? Memory? The devs do point out that specific hardware components, compared one-to-one, are better on the PS4 than the Xbox One, but as even these other articles point, that doesn't mean that the Xbox One is 50% less powerful, because measuring the complete performance of the console is a contribution of several factors. Heck, even on of their anonymous devs speculates that at the end of the day, this means that a game that can run a fixed 30 fps on the PS4 may run in the 20-something fps on the Xbox One, which is certainly not a factor of 50%. Hence, this is all speculative and inclusion right now is geared towards promoting the PS4 (particularly when tossed against the $100 price tag difference figure). It is better to wait until true hardware measurements can be made on the final, as shipped units, and if the technical power of the Xbox One remains underwhelming compared to the PS3 after that point, then we can figure out where to include it. Right now, no, its not appropriate at least in the manner presented. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you get to decided what is relevant and what's not? Who are you, ThomasO1989?

And Masem, Cky2250, are you the experts about game consoles, or game developers are? Unless you are saying Edge made up these "anonymous developers".

Cky2250 claimed that this is a "marketing ploy". Give a source about that, please. Shrine Maiden 16:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Come on, stop this. One of the main foundations of Wikipedia is finding WP:CONSENSUS. People are supposed to voice their opinions on this sort of thing. And again, you still haven't addressed a single concern sent your way, you just keep on saying "Come on, why not?" over and over again. There are many, much stronger arguments than the "Marketing Ploy" one. Please try addressing some of those. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, Edge, a respectable magazine about gaming, reported that they interviewed some game developers (who obviously wanted to be anonymous to avoid backlash from Microsoft). These game developers claimed that PS4 is 50% more powerful than XB1. This news are also reported by many other respected sites like IGN. I just read those, and wrote in this article that there have been reports like that. I gave sources, citations. Then this guy came and deleted it without saying anything, even made bold claims that these reports are just "marketing ploy" (by Sony?) And now some other users are talking asif they are the real experts on this stuff, not game developers and editors of gaming magazines? Shrine Maiden 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the situation here. Its not a "Wikipedia editors VS. IGN" scenario. IGN chose to run a story about info from Edge from an unverified person about vague percentages. Even they present it as "this is what we've heard", not absolute fact. We're not obligated to use every little factoid IGN presents on their websites. The consensus right now is that this information is trivial. Don't re-add it to the article unless the consensus this changes. Right now no one supports your edits, and on perfectly good grounds - WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And it is trivial because 3 Xbox fans said so? Shrine Maiden 16:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, its trivial because the source of the actual facts in undisclosed, and the information is in the terms of vague percentages and not in the terms of actual performance. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So you are claiming that either Edge made up those developers, or these game developers don't know what they are talking about? Shrine Maiden 16:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that Edge wrote an article saying "Here's some vague percentage a guy told us about. But we're not saying who." Again, not every little bit of info must be included. What if I find a source that says "We've got a guy on the inside that the PS4 controller will be 5.7% lighter than the Xbox one?" Do we have put that in there just because someone said it? Am I a fanboy because I don't want the world to know about this 5.7%? Of course not. It's just not that great of a bit of info... Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

50% weaker is more relevant than 5.7% lighter. It's clearly relevant enough for Edge, IGN, Kotaku, etc to report about it. It's relevant enough for people to rage over it. Why do you have to delete it? Shrine Maiden 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, your claim to "relevant" is entirely subjective, and in my scenario, there were sources, and the "internet raging" is hardly a reason for inclusion. And while we don't have to remove it, we do have to adhere to consensus, and right, consensus is not to include it. More people right now feel that the information is not useful, incomplete, or misleading. Sorry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions are also entirely subjective. 3 Xbox fans are feeling that "Xbox1 is slow" is not useful, right. Shrine Maiden 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, but mine/ours is backed by WP:CONSENSUS. Are you not familiar with this concept? Also, are you referring to me as one of these 3 supposed fans? Minus disagreeing with you on this one point, do you any justification for that claim? Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It says users should compromise. I tried by presenting an almost entirely different paragraph, and you guys are just "NO, NO, NO". From the beginning Cky2250 and ThomasO1989 were just trying to delete it, no matter on what grounds. This is no consensus, this is more like Xbox fans united to block information they don't like. Shrine Maiden 18:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No one's arguments have cited anything anti-Microsoft in their reasoning, and you haven't even presented any evidence backing up the claim of anyone being a Microsoft fan to begin with, myself included, so your comments on that are completely unfounded. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You complained about it being in the lead section, I compromised and changed it. You complained about "50% percentage", I compromised and changed it. Now you are just "WE SAY NO NO NO". It has become clear that your only intention is to block/delete it. Shrine Maiden 18:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All that is being asked is for solid facts with open documentation of what is what, if you can provide that information. So far there are only 3 sources and 2 of which are refering to the first source, consequently the same source. From the original it is read as it was hearsay, with mixed information where it talks about how one developer says the Xbox One will be faster. In sort everything is uncertain even from the article claiming PS4 will be 50% faster then the Xbox One.Cky2250 (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I will try to re-word it. "Edge reported that there were game developers who claimed that PS4 is 50% more powerful than XB1." Is it acceptable to you then? Shrine Maiden 16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Percentages are still vague and it still doesn't appear relevant to the general reader. Why should the reader care about the PS4 in this context? Why is it important to specify that one console performs better than the other when the reader can make the distinction for themselves based on the existing specs? You have not answered this. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Percentage is easier for general readers to understand than technical stuffs like Arithmetic Logic Unit and ESRAM. The PS4 and Xbox1 are direct rivals of this generation, every sites about gaming have always been comparing these 2 consoles, hence the "console war". Readers, who are not experts, may try Wikipedia before deciding which console to buy. Shrine Maiden 16:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem here: "Readers, who are not experts, may try Wikipedia before deciding which console to buy." You can't assume that all readers are interested in buying the console. The information is therefore irrelevant to the general reader, who may just want to learn about the console and move on. They probably don't care how "it stacks up to PS4" in that context. If the information is here for the sole purpose of influencing someone's buying decision, then it's non-neutral. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You are moving from "HEY THIS IS A MARKETING PLOY" to "readers don't want this info". Then half of this article is irrelevant, and all "Reception" sections on articles about games and movies need to be deleted because they would be non-neutral. Shrine Maiden 17:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You are making the argument that reception sections are solely for influencing someone's buying decision, which is simply untrue. Reading a review of a game does not imply the reader intends to buy or play it. Reception covers reaction/opinions from different sources and is informative on the relevancy of the subject in culture or society. "PS4 is stronger than XBox One" doesn't fall under this. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is Edge's report about the opinions of high-level game development sources about Xbox1, and it is informative on the relevancy of Xbox1 in gaming culture.

So I am gonna add a completely difference piece of cited information to the reception section of is article (based on the same source), and I believe that I don't need anyone's permission to add cited information to any article on Wikipedia:

Edge claimed that the Xbox One will be less capable compared to PlayStation 4 at launch. Editor Neil Long cited "high-level game development sources" who said that there is "significant" and "obvious" difference in performance between this generation's consoles. Xbox One's ESRAM is criticized as "weaker" and "hard to use", while its Arithmetic Logic Unit is also criticized as slower than PS4's ALU and its graphics drivers is called "horrible".

Does that sound fair enough to you guys? Shrine Maiden 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, for reasons already stated here and at the ps4 talk page, no one wants it included, regardless of how you present it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinions are entirely subjective. A respectable source said their opinion about this particular console, and you are trying to block this piece of information just because 3 or 4 of you just don't want it? Shrine Maiden 17:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please brush up on your understanding on WP:CONSENSUS. Until then, I think we're about done here, we're just talking circles at this point... Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It says users should compromise. First I tried to move it from the lead to another section as you suggested, then I presented an almost entirely different paragraph, and you guys are just "NO, NO, NO". From the beginning Cky2250 and ThomasO1989 were just trying to delete it, no matter on what grounds. You switched from "hey it has sources" to "NO NO NO". This is no consensus, this is more like Xbox fans united to block information they don't like. Shrine Maiden 18:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No one said "NO NO NO." I, and everyone else here, gave reasons against its inclusion. You failed to address any of them. Rewriting the information slightly does not address those reasons, it merely sidesteps them. Either way, calm down and quit with the personal attacks. Stop assuming bad faith and acting like people who don't agree with you have some agenda like "XBox fanboyism." It's immature and counterproductive. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I compromised twice, rewrote it. You just say "no", no real reason given. Shrine Maiden 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave my reasons repeatedly, and your rewrites don't address it in the slightest. Comparing PS4 to One in this manner is arbitrary and unnecessary. You're assuming that all readers are interested in buying the console, which makes it irrelevant for the general reader, and adding the statement for the purpose of "giving readers a better idea of what to buy" is non-neutral. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary is just your opinion and it's subjective. I am not assuming what readers are interested in anymore. Edge magazine, a very respectable source about video games gave their opinion about the Xbox 1. I just put it in the reception section. Nothing wrong about it. Shrine Maiden 19:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And what is wrong with this paragraph?

Edge claimed that the Xbox One will be less capable compared to PlayStation 4 at launch. Editor Neil Long cited "high-level game development sources" who said that there is "significant" and "obvious" difference in performance between this generation's consoles. Xbox One's ESRAM is criticized as "weaker" and "hard to use", while its Arithmetic Logic Unit is also criticized as slower than PS4's ALU and its graphics drivers is called "horrible". Shrine Maiden 17:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If it would be added the best place would be in the History of video game consoles (eighth generation), and only after hard proof was found by credible sources. It would appear to be a marketing ploy if added to a competitors wiki article. Each article should be about the item specified not comparisons of how one is better then the other. Example: Would it make sense to have on Windows Microsoft's article how Mac OS comes with hardware made for the OS, while Microsoft has all third party hardware. No it wouldn't. Same concept goes with these statements you want added. People should only find out information about the product itself and not competitors comparison.Cky2250 (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Then not mentioning PlayStation 4 is alright to you? Shrine Maiden 18:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would see it fine myself for it to be in the history of eighth generation only once the Xbox One and PS4 come out, or when there is hands on hard evidence non-hearsay documentation is provided by any credible source. All that should be stated on the Xbox One article is how it currently is "It will directly compete with Sony's PlayStation 4 and Nintendo's Wii U as part of the eighth generation of video game consoles.". Same with the other articles only the mention that they are competitors and not how one is better then the other.Cky2250 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What is your reason to delete this paragraph

Edge claimed that the Xbox One will be less capable compared to PlayStation 4 at launch. Editor Neil Long cited "high-level game development sources" who said that there is "significant" and "obvious" difference in performance between this generation's consoles. Xbox One's ESRAM is criticized as "weaker" and "hard to use", while its Arithmetic Logic Unit is also criticized as slower than PS4's ALU and its graphics drivers is called "horrible".

Source [9]

This isn't about "lead section" or "50% as powerful" anymore.

I just wrote what Edge (magazine), a very respectable source about video games, reported. I gave source. Edge's opinions about Xbox1 should be in the reception section of this article, just like many other gaming websites' opinions already in.

I believe I don't need anyone's permission to add a well-cited information from a well-known source.

Shrine Maiden 18:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Because its extremely similar to the same information you were just trying to push into the article, and none of your rewordings have been approved. That's an extremely shady way of trying to get your way. It's called "Gaming the System". Please don't do it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not similar at all. It's neither in the lead section nor having any "50% powerful" in it. This is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. I am free to edit, I don't need YOUR approval, especially when adding cited stuffs. I think YOU are "gaming the system", trying to prevent a cited piece of information from a respected source like Edge (magazine) on any grounds possible. Please don't do it. Shrine Maiden 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Its the same source discussing the same concept (comparing the 2 systems), just a different excerpt. And you absolutely have to abide by consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same source (verifiable, reliable, respectable source well-known for their contacts in the gaming industry), the excerpts are nearly completely different. Tell me what is wrong with this excerpt, and why is it not allowed to be in the reception section, please. Shrine Maiden 18:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please stop posting deliberately provocative postings with the aim of inciting an angry response.Cky2250 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to make me angry by blocking/deleting cited information from a respected source and not giving any solid reasons except for "it's marketing ploy", "we said we don't like it". Just point out what words/phrase/sentence in the paragraph above are not allowed, and why, please. Shrine Maiden 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Its the sources's premise in general. This isn't the thoughts of an edge editor, it's some unattributed opinion. We don't know who even said it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edge is known for its contacts in the industry, of course they have to protect these devs by hiding their identities. I just presented the piece of info as it is. The readers of Wikipedia have all the rights to know that Edge reported that. They can decide for themselves if it is believable or not. Shrine Maiden 19:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Decide for themselves if it's believable?" That's extremely poor rationale for inclusion. Shouldn't Wikipedia focus on what actually is believable rather than what might be? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't wanna claim that it is believable or not. Edge magazine, an old and respectable source reported it like that, and I just put it as it is. Anything wrong with that? Who are you to decide what other people should believe in? What kind of gaming experts are you or me to doubt Edge or game devs? If you are suspecting that Edge (magazine) is lying, give citation. If you are saying Edge (magazine) is not a reliable source, give citations. Shrine Maiden 19:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to a recent dispute I had and the same logic applies here: If the reliability of the content is in question than it does not matter if the source is "reliable". Speculation is speculation and I doubt that any deliberate real world testing of the finished products have been verifiable and demonstrated by reliable sources. The source should not be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is far from being just some speculations from uninformed kids. Those game developers know what they are talking about, they just don't want their names revealed. And it is not presented as a fact, I just write: "Edge (magazine) wrote that...". Shrine Maiden 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It is speculation as to how these units will actually perform in the final console. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Game developers had their hands on these consoles long ago. The final product won't have many changes. Again, they are the experts here, not YOU or me. Reliable sources said that, I just wrote it down as it is. They said Xbox One's ESRAM is "a pain to use", they said its ALU and graphics drivers is "horrible". Do you have any citation to rebuff that? Shrine Maiden 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDHT and yes you are presenting it as a fact. Please listen to the concerns of your fellow editors and stop trying to strongarm and distract from the original problem. The issue has been dealt with and your insertion is questionable, please understand that reiterating it with slightly different wording or bringing up tangential talking points is not going to work here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Slightly different wording? Did you read the original sentence and the new paragraph? Shrine Maiden 20:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you read WP:IDHT? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you and your friend Cky2250 know that reverting other users multiple times without giving any reasons make you look exactly like vandals? Shrine Maiden 20:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that accusing people of vandalism because you refuse to accept consensus is assuming bad faith and disruptive? And saying that neither of us gave any reasons makes you a blatant liar? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't know if these are developers that have been using the pre-mass production builds, or just stating experience from the specific hardware components outside of the assembly. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Both Edge (magazine) and their sources must be credible enough for all the gaming websites over the world to repost the news, citing them. Just google it. No experts about video games ever doubt this news. ITT Xbox fans are gathering around here, trying anything they can to prevent this info from being written into Wikipedia. Yeah, that's what I think. Shrine Maiden 20:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not trying to say Edge is wrong, we're saying there's too many "unknowns" that the article doesn't address, and as a result, not much encyclopedic content is gained from it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Even Microsoft is not saying that the claims are wrong.[10] I would even say that they did indirectly admitted it. Shrine Maiden 20:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedic content gained from it is that Xbox One's ESRAM has been criticized by devs as "a pain to use", its Arithmetic Logic Unit is slow, and its graphics drivers has been called "horrible" by devs. Shrine Maiden 20:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at their actual response. Microsoft danced around the issue entirely. Absence of denial is not automatically positive confirmation. That's flawed logic and jumping to conclusions. And WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

They danced around it because it's true, most likely. And there's no original research in the paragraph on the top of this section. Shrine Maiden 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Who says it's "most likely" true? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes them "a pain to use" or "horrible"? What does that mean? There's nothing specific there. It's completely vague. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the article. Shrine Maiden 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

MS didn't say they were right either, either way is synthesis to try and make a encyclopedic statement from the two. Even ignoring notability, WP:UNDUE comes to play here on the 50% claim statement, regardless of the respectability of the source (Edge). How prominent is that claim presented in other reliable sources? DrNegative (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh... more Xbox fans? I would assume that they are all over this page since it's about Xbox One. Fine. You fought hard to protect your precious console. You were gaming the system and succeeded, I think. Shrine Maiden 20:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. Despite being asked several times, you've failed to provide any proof that this is fueled by being "Xbox Fans". I'm personally not one, and no one else has said anything to lead me to believe they are letting that cloud their judgment either. Also, you're not even close to understanding the concept of gaming the system, judging by how you're using it... Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear. This user DrNegative jumped in and said something about Microsoft and 50%. He did not even read the paragraph that was delete. It is below and there is nothing about Microsoft or 50%.

Edge claimed that the Xbox One will be less capable compared to PlayStation 4 at launch. Editor Neil Long cited "high-level game development sources" who said that there is "significant" and "obvious" difference in performance between this generation's consoles. Xbox One's ESRAM is criticized as "weaker" and "hard to use", while its Arithmetic Logic Unit is also criticized as slower than PS4's ALU and its graphics drivers is called "horrible".

It is clear that you guys just try to pull out anything to prevent this from being written into Wikipedia, deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, exactly. Shrine Maiden 20:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The 50% statement was reference to that article and the wall of text discussion above this one which you reworded for inclusion. DrNegative (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Shrine Maiden, this is a warning. Stop accusing others of bad faith and remain civil. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you call deleting cited information multiple times without giving any reasons then? Good faith edits? Shrine Maiden 20:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, neither of those are civility violations or bad faith edits, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. (Whether you decide to acknowledge everyone's reasons or not, there have been many well-thought out, policy-based reasons why it should be removed.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith" is just taken from gaming the system. It's exactly what you are doing, I think. Shrine Maiden 20:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The key term is "bad faith". What have I done in "bad faith"? Why was it bad faith? Do you know what that means on Wikipedia? Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying to delete cited information from reliable source isn't bad faith? Using dubious reasons at that. You accused me of "gaming the system" first. I put in some good info, I gave reliable source. Why was that bad faith? Shrine Maiden 21:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement to include every bit of information from a reliable source, though you're right that removal should be backed up by good reasoning. In this case, the argument is that the information is just noise at this point, and also presents a non-neutral point of view about the hardware. It is better to wait to see exactly what it appropriate to include once full tests have been performed on the released hardware. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What "dubious" reason are you referring to exactly? You were "gaming the system" because you were trying to slightly reword the content when it was already brought to your attention that the source and lack of detail in the source were some of the core reasons for excluding the information. It seemed like "bad faith" because it was already explained to you not to use that source. Now, what dubious or bad faith actions has anyone else done, keeping in mind the act of removing it is not bad faith in itself. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So it's not dubious, huh? First, 1 guy deleted it several time without saying a word. Then he said that "it's marketing ploy". Then another guy jumped in and his reasoning is "it's unnecessary to the general readers". And then there is you, who at first gave the reason as "it shouldn't be in the lead of the article", then you switched to "the source is unnamed", and "there are many unknown". Not dubious? I only slightly reworded it? It's from 1 sentence to a paragraph, and they are not even remotely similar. You are deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guideline to get what you want, that is removing that piece of info. Shrine Maiden 21:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

[rollback (VANDAL)] does not allow user input for comments. That is why i didn't say things the first 2 times.Cky2250 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't have time to say anything in this talkpage or my talkpage too, huh? And you labelled my last edits "vandalism". Your reasoning? You haven't explained your "marketing ploy" claims either. Shrine Maiden 21:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Like I already said, he should have supplied an edit summary, but now that he's explained his actions on the talk page, we're fine. I originally thought maybe it had a place elsewhere, outside of the lead, but after so many people brought up concerns about the information (The fact it comes from an "unnamed person", the fact that the information is vague and has no specs, the fact that we don't know if they were looking at final specs or not, etc) I've changed my stance to leave it out altogether. We're all allowed to change our minds on things, nothing wrong with that. And you're missing the point; it doesn't matter how much you did or didn't reword it, its that the source is being deemed unusable.
• Anyways, I'm done talking circles. With the exception of yourself, its unanimous that the info should be left out entirely. I'm not acting in bad faith, and have no affiliation with Microsoft. I'm not biased; I've never even owned any Xbox, and only 1 of my 60 created article has been an Xbox game, so any accusations there are all very misguided. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, some Xbox fans gamed the system and succeeded. Happy ending. Bye. Shrine Maiden 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New picture for article

http://www.google.com/search?q=xbox+one&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=mIY_UoerHu3K4AOImYEg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAA&biw=768&bih=902&dpr=1#biv=i%7C0%3Bd%7Cp_dneO9Z43jNrM%3A

Why not use a proper picture of the Xbox One, such as the first result of the image search with the white background? The console is much more visible and clear. 71.168.112.228 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NFCC #1, we cannot use copyrighted pictures of anything if freely licensed photos exist or can be created. Quality does not matter. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to extract images, like it was done in the PlayStation 4 article. PlayStation Four.png, that is. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Xbox One will be out very soon; why bother trying to get a new image now when we'll be able to get better pictures once its released? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We should also wait for User:Evan-Amos's version, since he's done all the console pics and has been recognized as one of the better people to do this, once he can get the device in his hands to work with. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that it is released in some areas... -- Billybob2002 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Logo

I updated the logo with a vector (well, partially vector) version. I sourced the logo from a PDF (noted at the file source) which has the Xbox globe in vector form. Sadly, despite my best efforts, I could not get it into an SVG that MediaWiki would render correctly. I invite other editors, if they're capable with SVG/Inkscape to attempt it if they feel so inclined. For now, this will have to do. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add release date and time to Release section of the page. The Xbox One was released first at midnight, November 22nd in New Zealand and other countries to follow due to time zone difference. Source: http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/Xbox_One_Release_Date http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en-us/app/microsoft-stores-xbox-one/fc6fc51b-b3e1-4563-ac1d-7a0167e43bc1 http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57601264-75/xbox-one-to-launch-november-22/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/13/live-sharks-are-guarding-the-xbox-one-ahead-of-launch/

List of countries where Xbox One was initially released on November 22nd: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, UK, USA Ppkhoa (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ppkhoa, although I am glad you are trying to contribute to an empty section of the article, there seems to be a few issues. The article you cited was dated before the actual event, hence the statement that "X happened" would not be verifiable. Also, the Xbox One, according to your article, would be released to one "lucky fan," not necessarily everyone, at midnight. Please write out an organized paragraph with improved references, and I will be happy to help you out again. Thanks for trying though! --JustBerry (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Brazil Launch

Please add that the Xbox One was also released in Brazil on the same date as it was in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, 22th November — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitor Naniko (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

-- I wish to add to the main article that the console is made in Brazil, too, at least some of them. Source: http://jogos.uol.com.br/ultimas-noticias/2013/10/23/xbox-one-sera-fabricado-no-brasil-segundo-anatel.htm 99.104.188.162 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013

Please specify that even though the included hard drive is 500 GB, there is only 362-365 GB available to the user.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/12/09/xbox-one-hard-drive-full-at-362gbs PS Fan Boy (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC) PS Fan Boy

Denied. Inside the system is still a 500 GB harddrive. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty standard across all media. For example, a 16GB memory stick or iPhone only actually has 14.X GB available, but its still listed as a 16GB size. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually a 500 GB hard drive should still show around 465 GB of available space once you do the conversion (500,000,000,000 / 1024^3). So if there is only 360-ish available, then 100 GB or so is being reserved for something else. Even so, I don't think it should be included until there are more reliable sources reporting/verifying the issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a few website commenting on the fact now, actually. I think the commenter's point was more to do with the fact that the console seems to have 140GB worth of OS on it (somehow!) than it was a request for any major changes to be made. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Blind speculation on black Friday sales

Being objective as possible is good for Wikipedia. There is no reliable information that X1's sales are attributed to a shortage of PS4s. Zero Serenity (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We personally cannot make the connection per WP:OR - you are right about that. But we have a source (*) from an analyst that makes that connection for us, and as such it technically is valid information to add. (*) That said, I'm not sure who this person is or their credentials - I did look at the Infoscout article, but that doesn't give me a lot of confidence. If this was, say, Michael Pachter making that claim, sure, or someone from an established analyst base, but this isn't the case here, so I do throw in that how much that is a reliable expert source is a bit in question. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And if that's the case, I'm fine with it. But the 2 people who objected to its inclusion did so on the grounds of "its not objective", which isn't a valid reason for removing it. As you said, and I said in my edit summary, that speculation is acceptable if its reliably sourced and portrayed as speculation and not solid fact. Even the title of this topic isn't quite right; its not "blind speculation" if its coming from an analyst, someone who does this for a living. But again, if there's consensus that he's not an established enough analyst, as Masem says, then I'm fine leaving it out on those grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

X1s are also in short supply (according to Microsoft) so I have speculation. Brelig cites this article, but said article cites no data which again leads to my whole "blind speculation" thing. I still think it's more heresy than factually based. Aside, who's Michael Pachter? Zero Serenity (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael Pachter, this guy. And analysts, in generally, are not always going to source or provide data for every point they make (their job is to research and compile that, and to give away for free is not going to happen). To Sergecross's point, he is absolutely right that as long as as secondary, independent reliable source makes the claim, it is not an issue for WP to include it; my only concern is how "reliable" this particular source is. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the sources for data points. But to me when somebody cites something then source says to the effect of "There might be a shortage of PS4s today." on the day in question, it doesn't really say much apart from "we're speculating". I suppose what I'm asking for is some more references to the idea. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's where the reliability of the analyst comes into play. The reason I cite Pachter is that while his job is to speculate (for investors, etc.) he's generally in the right direction and when he's wrong, it's not "epic fail"-wrong. So I would consider him an expect that if he says something as part of his analyst job, there's a possibility he might be wrong but it still represents an appropriate source to include as per WP:OR. On the other hand, this specific report, I've never heard of the guy. That doesn't mean he's a bad analyst, just that we have nothing to go on to know if he's right or wrong most of the time; as such I do put forth the concern about his statement, and that is where more data or similiar analysis would be nice to have. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The analyst is the source, he doesn't need to cite his sources; it's the video game website citing him - that's enough, because we're only trying cite what he's saying, not why or how he got there. I do understand Masem's point though; I don't really keep tabs on any of these analysts beyond Pachter and Jesse Divinich of EEDAR, the rest just kind of blur together. I can check and see if this person has much of a background in this sort of thing or not... Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter. An analyst has an opinion not a fact, no matter how reliable.HypedBeaver13 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read this whole conversation. That is not Wikipedias stance on speculation. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing an analyst is perfectly acceptable to avoid WP:OR (original research by wikipedia editors). It is equivalent to adding review commentary on a video game offered by external sources to explain the good and bad of a video game. The only caution in this particular case is the reliability of this one analyst. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Another point to consider deals with "significant coverage". Not everything that is verifiable (or "valid") needs to be included on Wikipedia. If no one else is citing this analyst's opinion in the media or sharing opinions that agree with it, then maybe it doesn't belong on those grounds. Now to be honest, I haven't even looked at the statement in question. Just thought I'd point out that significant coverage matters just as much as reliability when deciding on inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well this is something that is not widely covered. It is one opinion of one analyst.HypedBeaver13 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This should not be included in the article. Otherwise, lets just go on every other video game console article and include something this random journalist said. If it is not widely accepted and cited, it shouldn't be included.TenseWookie (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, So should we go on the PlayStation 4 article and include the statement that most people didn't want to buy the PS4 because of Sony not delivering on hype? NO! Because it would be pointless from one source, but it is on the source Sergecross73 gave, so why not include it?TenseWookie (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, if you can get a reliable source to quote a professional analyst on that, it'd be possible. But I don't think a professional analyst would ever say that, that strikes me as a really bad example/analogy. Please, try to argue based on policy, not your personal feelings. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Until there is an agreement on the talk page, the constant reverts should stop and the original edit remain on the main page.HypedBeaver13 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

We could extend the WP:WEIGHT argument to the data itself, which spans a shopping period of 1 day. In the broader scope of things, how can this possibly be deemed significant? The analyst also uses the noun "success", which is far more subjective than observing Sony's difficulty to replenish stock (a fact reported by numerous reliable sources). So let us be consistent: either we remove the whole thing, or we include the reason why the same analyst believes Microsoft did so well at this point in time. — TPX 19:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The data of having more sales receipts is from more than one source. The reasoning is only by one. Zero Serenity (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not a satisfactory reply. Please take the necessary time to familiar yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and the opposing view points articulated above, then apply systematically what you learn having read them. — TPX 20:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to PS4

Most of the details in this edit are poorly sourced and make unnecessary non-neutral comparisons to the PS4, like "The PS4 is more popular" and "PS4 runs more 1080p games." The conversion issue seems notable, but "banning swearing" is really worth a mention? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

First, only remove what you think it may not be OK and need discussion. Do not delete every change.

If you think something is not OK please improve it. Instead of removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfixerer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, you're in the wrong here. If you don't like it all being removed, then multiple, smaller edits. That being said, most of it warrants removal or being portrayed vastly different.
• Your edits definitely aren't neutral, and that's not allowed. There's no way to rationalize putting a "more popular" comparison point in the intro, sourced or not. Similar issues like blocking profanity as a "censorship issue". That doesn't need to have its own section, and no one's saying its a huge "censorship issue". You're sensationalizing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Those edits are baseless and are definitely neither objective nor neutral.HypedBeaver13 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will stay away from comparisons to the PS4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfixerer (talk • contribs) 08:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Issues

Is there any disagreement with the issues I added? Otherwise I will restore them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfixerer (talk • contribs) 10:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

He's talking about these additions of his, by the way. I have some objections:

1. Do we need a whole subsection dedicated to the blocking of profanity? (Also, is it correct? For instance, this source claims Skype isn't included, but your statement does.
2. "Some Xbox One units" is extremely vague. There should be some sort of qualifier there, otherwise it sounds like it could be anywhere from 1% to 99% of them being faulty.
3. This source suggests there's more to the story than just "they were unable to fix it". There's already one listed way to fix it.

Now, if these things can be cleaned up some, they may warrant inclusion..but again, probably like in the reception section or something, not in its own dedicated subsection. I feel like it creates undue weight issues to have them in their own sections like this. The big thing on used games? That was a huge issue. These things? They're more nitpicky and minor... Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that much of the edits are very vague and seeing as how most console launches report multiple issues, it seems very, very nitpicky, especially the way the edits by Mfixerer are worded.MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the changes using your contributions. Thank you.Mfixerer (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You haven't fixed all the issues. For example, why do you keep creating undue weight by putting them in their own subsections? Do not re-add this material until all issues have been resolved by discussing proposed changes here, instead of putting them back with minor edits and blindly hoping "it's good now." --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Only the location is left for discussion. There is no need to remove everything. Please, be constructive, no destructive.

I have restored the content. You can move where you think it should go. And then we can debate about if your location is OK.Mfixerer (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the content is still inappropriate. The problems with the xbox hardware or software should be discussed in broad terms, not specific issues unless that specific issue is highlighted by many sources. For example, it might be possible to discuss the drive issue that numerous users have in such a way, but not the way you have present; without including any comment from MS for example, you're biasing these against MS and making it look like a laundry list of problems. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to add more references and improve Wikipedia but please do not hide those issues.Mfixerer (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please suggest a better placement for the issues. Otherwise I will have to revert your removal.Mfixerer (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You must be new here. The consensus is clearly against you as not only these edits but others to this article have been reverted. Our job is not to fill in your references, it's to keep the wiki as honest as possible. If you cannot produce references to back up your claims, don't edit it. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mfixerer: I believe you have good intentions, but you have to keep in mind that a high-traffic article like this is going to be watched by a lot of editors. Many have concerns about the formatting, grammar, and placement of the content you are trying to add. Those are minor concerns, of course, that shouldn't prevent the content from being added. However, there are still some major concerns that need to be addressed:

1. How prominent are these reports in the news? The disc drive issue certainly is, but the "blocking of profanity" issue, not so much. Although we can verify the information, it doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on Wikipedia. The content must have "significant coverage" in reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Also, it shouldn't fall under What Wikipedia is not. Most importantly, it must have consensus among other editors before being added. Being reverted is an indication that you may not have consensus, which you'll want to obtain here on the article's talk page.
2. Instead of adding just one or two sentences, more context is needed to inform the reader. For example, the "TV 50 Hz issue" comes out of nowhere. Someone reading this article may have no idea what it's about, even after reading your statements. They don't belong unless they can be more informative. This applies to all the statements you are trying to add. Like with any encyclopedia, they should be in paragraph form, not standalone, one-line sentences.

I strongly recommend you visit your talk page and try out the Wikipedia Adventure that's posted there. It will help you become accustomed to Wikipedia policies and expectations. I'm sure there will be some editors here that will take your requests for this article into account, make the requested modifications, and add the information that benefits the article. Of course, you're more than welcome to contribute or do it yourself, but please post your modifications here or in a draft on your userspace to get approval first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to emphasize, problems that do not get significant coverage in reliable media, generally do not belong in the article, due to them being isolated, such as the 50Hz TV thing. Otherwise, most of these console articles would be littered with problems because, generally speaking, someone somewhere is experiencing any problem imaginable. The key is widespread problems, with significant coverage from, as mentioned above, reliable sources. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Successor?

Windows Phone isn't considered a successor of Windows Mobile on Wikipedia despite having a lot of the same software redesigned, why isn't this the case for Xbox? Microsoft has renamed Windows Mobile to Windows Phone Classic (http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/winphone), yet the Wikipedia articles disregard any continuity of the product line, so why the Double Standard with the Xbox? --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, Windows Phone calls it out as a successor within the first paragraph? And what does this have to do with Xbox? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tense update

I updated the tense of some of the article that described various functions from a pre-release perspective, but in places (such as "Software and services" and "Games") the actual content still feels like it is covering pre-release information drips (e.g from E3). It could do with a rewrite in these places to reflect the present and everyday use of the console. SynergyBlades (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Update main picture

The console has been released in some areas, so why isn't the main image of the console updated? -- Billybob2002 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sales figures

Xbox one sold 3M end december, the 3,9M reprents Xbox one shipped and not sold at consumers. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-sold-3-million-units-in-2013-microsoft-says/1100-6416955/ Xavi8888 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Denied. Your source does not substantiate the claim. Zero Serenity (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree the sales should be changed back to the 3 million figure. The 3.9 million figure are units sold to retail not to customers. It even states this in the original source used to support that figure. http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/23/5338162/microsoft-q2-2014-financial-earnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpb91 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

here is another source http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/01/23/39-million-xbox-one-consoles-shipped-in-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpb91 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Listen, Microsoft does not sell directly to customers outside of their stores. Best Buy, Walmart, etc are concerned with selling to customers. Regardless of who it was to, Microsoft has sold 3.9 million units. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't used shipped figures, they can distort what is really happening, eg. if we used shipped figures the uDraw GameTablet would have sold 1.4 million units and been a run-away success, but it didn't sell that many, it bombed and left THQ with a $100 million debt that helped drag the company under. We only use retail sales figures. - X201 (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, unsold inventory of many products in major retailers such as Best Buy and Walmart are usually under contract and can be sent back. This is why the developer/manufacturer can decide anytime to lower prices that immediately impacts store shelves. It is being stocked by the retailer, but the developer/manufacturer foots the bill, and thus, takes a majority of the loss. Citing the number of shipped units can be misleading in that sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. I apologize for that. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Skeptical about the marketing scheme

Something about it doesn't seem right. I would figure that this contract that was sent would have to pass legal who would have flagged it as questionable. Do we have acknowledgement of either Machinima or Microsoft (that we can cite) are really behind this? Until then I think it's fair to have some healthy skepticism about it. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What in particular is this about? Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources suggest the information has been leaked, so it is without official confirmation. Therefore, it would probably make sense to alter the wording to say "reportedly" or "allegedly" if the statements are to remain in the article. The way they're worded now suggests they are fact. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources such as The Guardian are stating that Ars Technica first reported it, before going on to state as fact that Microsoft did make payments. I'll add in the "reportedly", because I don't think you're going to get any sort of comment from either partner over something they would consider embarassing. SynergyBlades (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

While true, you can still typically get confirmation through anonymous sources that are affiliated but don't want to be identified. This happens all the time in journalism. Also, these sources are not revealing evidence that payments were made. They are only regurgitating the same report that Microsoft agreed to pay. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding reliable sources that take a more skeptical view would be a worthwhile addition, but adding most of the above skepticism to the article would, I assume, be original research. SynergyBlades (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying the skepticism above should be added to the article. It was about fixing the statement or removing it completely. Adding "reportedly" resolves my concerns. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am content for now. Wait and see. Zero Serenity (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And it's apparently a real thing. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely real, but the sort of thing that Microsoft is talking about is extremely normal in any industry. Microsoft is speaking of a partnership to promote the Xbox One, not to boost likes on videos, etc. I mean they could simply just be talking about having a banner on the site. We don't know. Everything is just speculation at the moment. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to say it seems extremely biased to put something this short, barely a paragraph up. Cowgoesmoo2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Slimming Initial Policies Section

I'm reading the article and too much of it seems to be the section "Initial used games and Internet verification policies". The console is out, it doesn't include any of the stuff listed in this section. I'm not proposing axing the entire section, but it certainly could get smaller and stick to things that are more significant. Thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think any one part should be removed outright, but it could certainly be trimmed. For instance, the Adam Orth stuff could be trimmed down to a single sentence. Same with the bit about how it helped Sony build hype/"win" E3 - it could be trimmed down to a sentence rather than the short paragraph it is now... Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Open Sandbox. Suggest or edit please. It was 17kb before I took up the axe. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And it's up after a day of cooking. Let's see how it goes. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Machinima Marketing

ArsTechnica says Microsoft was not aware of the specific contracts involving the promotion of the Xbox One. As such, I have edited the section accordingly, but I think it would be better served that if the section was axed entirely. Opening the floor. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sales section

I believe to keep the 3 million there is accurate, but below it they should put the 3.9 million Xbox Ones shipped — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeroyhim (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He means 3.9. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes corrected. Please add this to the article. Leeroyhim (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Added. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

In this article, It is stated that " there is no hardware restriction that would prevent games from running at 4K resolution". This information came before release of the game. Now xboxone is out, it is known that xboxone struggles to run the game at 1080p,60fps. There is know way that xbox one cant do 4k gaming.Yes, it is possible to do 4k video but not 4k gaming. So this statement contradicts the fact.So to provide proper fact about console above Statement should be immediately removed.Xbox can do 4k gaming is marketing strategy which is morally wrong Ukdhuri786 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added or removed from any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Xbox One Update Preview Program

In February 2014, Microsoft announced a private beta test of the March 2014 update. People who got invited in to the preview program got a message from Xbox Live which included a code to download the registration app. A few weeks later Microsoft released the preview update to people who are in the preview. Preview participates also got access to a private Xbox forum where they can submit feedback, suggestions and get change logs for any updates that may happen during the course of the preview period — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm perplexed what you're asking for. This information isn't really much for anything to include in the article (lacks a source anyway). Zero Serenity (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if true and properly sourced, it wouldn't be within the scope of the article. We are not covering every individual fact and event about the Xbox One. Only those that are significant should be included. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it is reliably sourced, which I am having trouble finding, it lacks significance. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, not worthy enough for an inclusion in the article in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Initial used games and Internet verification policies suggested edit

Fourth Paragraph of this section mentions things "Mattrick" did twice without giving any reference to who "Mattrick" is. The person in question is Don Mattrick, (now former) President of the Interactive Entertainment Business. While the relevance of the statements about his departure from Microsoft to the article on the Xbox One is debatable at best, I think it's necessary to at least give his full name as a link to the article on Don Mattrick, probably even give his title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.29.158 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That section received some major edits just over a week ago, the portion where Mattrick was introduced by his full name and title was removed. - X201 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed - X201 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Privacy Concerns

The second paragraph has very little relevance to this article as it seems to be about set top boxes in general and the representative posting the article. I think it should be axed as part of the article. Objections? Zero Serenity (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

Price is now only 50$ higher than ps4 in Canada since March 14th 2014. MatLeGeek (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Relevancy. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, what in particular would you want changed, or what would you recommend the article to say? MrAdaptive343 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility

This article's floating around. This isn't exactly confirmation that it will be a thing, but it does somewhat leave the question open. With so many news items starting as leaks and rumors, it wouldn't surprise me if this really is how it's done. E3 is in a couple months, so maybe more then. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm speaking out of turn. It's been injected into the article with this reference. Again, vigilance would be nice. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pure speculation. Just because a system "can" doesn't mean it "does", and not only that, but its pretty much just PR at the moment. No real plans are in place, they are just researching it. Rilech (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I stressed vigilance. It would be good to keep an eye on if/when this develops. Hopefully now that this article is under semi-protection for an entire blippin' year we can work on it instead of having to bat vandalism constantly. Zero Serenity (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. It really should have never came off protection. Rilech (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)